|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 05/29/2010 : 09:57:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by tomk80
The reason being that in previous years the mainstream left and right parties had both moved up to the center. Nowadays, the right in the Netherlands has become more right and the left more left. Which is good. |
Why is this good?
|
Because political parties need to be more diverse. If they are all the same, what would be the point in choosing between them? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2010 : 23:07:08 [Permalink]
|
Trollerific! 
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2010 : 01:05:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by tomk80
The reason being that in previous years the mainstream left and right parties had both moved up to the center. Nowadays, the right in the Netherlands has become more right and the left more left. Which is good. |
Why is this good?
|
Because political parties need to be more diverse. If they are all the same, what would be the point in choosing between them?
|
I wasn't sure of how the parties work in the Netherlands -- whether they're large or small, relatively entrenched or evolving in positions, etc. Looks like they're somewhat small, 11 parties with representation in national government. I see that varied parties are desirable there.
In the U.S. two-party system, widely differing parties sometimes lead to a dynamic I don't like so much. In the primary elections, candidates from each are chosen from voters of the party and the parties choose to fund the campaigns of the candidates they like (i.e. whoever is closest to all of the party's positions).
I think this process before the general election tends to marginalize centrist candidates, or candidates who have varying agreements and disagreements with respect to each party stance. It can be tough for these people to make it to the general election in a major party, and if they don't, they can run independently or as a third party, which means they run against candidates backed by party money, at a disadvantage. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/31/2010 01:05:40 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2010 : 05:50:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I wasn't sure of how the parties work in the Netherlands -- whether they're large or small, relatively entrenched or evolving in positions, etc. Looks like they're somewhat small, 11 parties with representation in national government. I see that varied parties are desirable there.
In the U.S. two-party system, widely differing parties sometimes lead to a dynamic I don't like so much. In the primary elections, candidates from each are chosen from voters of the party and the parties choose to fund the campaigns of the candidates they like (i.e. whoever is closest to all of the party's positions).
I think this process before the general election tends to marginalize centrist candidates, or candidates who have varying agreements and disagreements with respect to each party stance. It can be tough for these people to make it to the general election in a major party, and if they don't, they can run independently or as a third party, which means they run against candidates backed by party money, at a disadvantage.
|
In the Netherlands we have a proportional representation system. Votes are country wide. After election the seats in the "second chamber" (house of representatives) are divided between the parties based on the proportion of votes they obtained in the election. Subsequently, through talks between the parties in the second chamber(which is called the formation) a cabinet is formed (US equivalent would be the administration).
As a rule we have three big parties that will obtain about 75% of the 150 seats. These are VVD (right), CDA (center) and PvdA (left). Some of the medium large parties will obtain around 10 seats each (the green party, the socialist party and the party of Geert Wilders) and then there will be a number of small (often one-issue) parties tagging along with one or two seats.
The cabinet proposes legislation and try to get this passed in the second chamber. So the cabinet will need to be able to obtain the backing of enough of the representatives in the second chamber. This means that in most cases CDA (the center party) will form a coalition with either the PvdA or VVD and a third, smaller party.
Presently there is a lot of resentment in the Netherlands, because people feel that they are not represented by their parties. Furthermore, there are a number of issues open that have to be solved but weren't because parties stood to close together and because of that would not touch those issues. With the current, stronger proliferation, either right or left will get a chance to actually work on these issues, by either going left or right. This doesn't necessarily mean that the option they work out will have my preference, of course, but at least as a country we are now able to choose the direction we want to go in for these issues.
***disclaimer***
This is, of course, the black and white version of events now. You can imagine that it is more complex, because of the formation process and because politics in the Netherlands is in quite a turmoil at present. It might be that left and right get approximately the same number of votes, while center gets few. In that case a cabinet needs to be formed between VVD (right), PvdA (left) and a third or even fourth party, in which case both parties need to make big trade-offs to form a cabinet. Or in this case either left or right form a minority cabinet (ie, the parties in the cabinet only have a minority in the second chamber). This would make it very hard form them to get their proposed legislation passed. This is made even harder because the center-party has declared some issues non-negotiable in their election, making trade-offs between them and the other parties harder in the formation process.
If you're into this sort of thing, I have to grudgingly admit that politics in the Netherlands is actually quite interesting at this point. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 05/31/2010 05:51:38 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2010 : 17:51:26 [Permalink]
|
How do they decide which representatives will represent each party/its voters? Do the parties decide independently of the voters after the voters determine how many seats they get? I could see that maybe this would be a source of some of the resentment. We have that sentiment as well, but I tend to blame it partially on the two-party dynamics I talked about before, among other things. Some I think invariably comes from political realities shared in any democratic system which dictate to large extent what can and cannot be legislated based on the political climate -- who controls what, where common ground exists, all the imperfections of translating social choice into political choice.
How does the Netherlands deal with problematic legislation? In the U.S., the courts can invalidate laws that violate our constitution, but I read the courts in the Netherlands do not do that. Is it generally just changed in the legislature/administration if there is enough dissent to change representatives in the next election?
Don't mean to bombard you with questions, just interested in the differences and advantages/disadvantages of different government structures. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/31/2010 17:52:05 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2010 : 03:13:59 [Permalink]
|
I can't speak for the Netherlands, but in Sweden, each party has their party convention where they make up a priority list. This list is on the voting ballot, and depending on how many seats the party gets, they just hand out the seats in the order of appearence on the ballot.
Generally. (In Sweden, each party has a set of ballots, and I put my choice of ballot in an envelope then post it in the ballot box. All by paper, since electronics is too unsecure. You should know about that...)
There are several different lists according to districs, and these lists are merged together into one master list according to the number of ballots collected from each district. I may also make a marking for a specific candidate close to the bottom of the list as a personal preference, and for all practical purposes, this person is counted as if he was on top of my ballot. I may also write a name of any person on an empty ballot for the party of my choice.
This can lead to interesting developments. Once, in one county the Green Party got one more seat than they had on any of their ballots. Which left one seat empty. But someone had written a person's name on a blank party ballot, so even if that guy wasn't a member of the party, he got their final seat. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2010 : 15:23:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
How do they decide which representatives will represent each party/its voters? Do the parties decide independently of the voters after the voters determine how many seats they get? |
In a party convention the list is set up by the party. If a party gets x votes, the first x people on the list will be in the house of representatives. Furthermore, in the election you can vote for a specific person on the list. If that person obtains enough votes he or she will also be in the house. So if VVD obtain 37 representatives, the first 37 on the list will be in the house. If person 50 obtains enough votes, he will be in the house instead of person 37.
| I could see that maybe this would be a source of some of the resentment. |
I don't think this is the case. I think part of the resentment comes from a number of persistent problems that politicians seem to have neglected, or at least failed to address adequately.
| We have that sentiment as well, but I tend to blame it partially on the two-party dynamics I talked about before, among other things. Some I think invariably comes from political realities shared in any democratic system which dictate to large extent what can and cannot be legislated based on the political climate -- who controls what, where common ground exists, all the imperfections of translating social choice into political choice. |
I think this comes into play as well.
| How does the Netherlands deal with problematic legislation? In the U.S., the courts can invalidate laws that violate our constitution, but I read the courts in the Netherlands do not do that. Is it generally just changed in the legislature/administration if there is enough dissent to change representatives in the next election? |
I don't know. This part is actually quite murky to me. It seems that one of the articles in the constitution actually decrees that if the lawmaker is convinced that a law is constitutional (ie, the law is passed, since we cannot formally assume à priori that the lawmaker would pass an unconstitutional law) it is constitutional. The courts can than note the disagreement between the law and the constitution, but they cannot strike the law. Or something. But I really have no good idea on this.
Don't mean to bombard you with questions, just interested in the differences and advantages/disadvantages of different government structures.
|
No sweat. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2010 : 15:31:36 [Permalink]
|
To add to the last post: There is currently legislation under debate that will allow the courts the test a law against a limited number of articles in the constitution. Furthermore, the courts can test a law against international treaties. The court still cannot test a law against the entire constitution.
Proponents of the current system argue that allowing judges to decide on the constitutionality of a law, would place the judges in the position of the lawmaker and thus violate the separation of the law-makers and judges. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2010 : 00:01:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
I don't think this is the case. I think part of the resentment comes from a number of persistent problems that politicians seem to have neglected, or at least failed to address adequately. |
My own country's politics probably clouding my judgment with that comment since we always elect specific persons.
| Proponents of the current system argue that allowing judges to decide on the constitutionality of a law, would place the judges in the position of the lawmaker and thus violate the separation of the law-makers and judges. |
I seem to recall from history that the same debate occurred many years ago in the US, I don't think this power was actually written in our constitution originally (Marbury v Madison set most of the important precedents I think).
There are still disagreements now, mostly on our right wing. They oppose judges who they say "legislate from the bench." (sound bite...) Congress can always pass a new law without the bit that the judges find incompatible with our constitution, but that takes time and effort. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 06/02/2010 00:09:06 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2010 : 01:37:02 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Machi4velliMy own country's politics probably clouding my judgment with that comment since we always elect specific persons. |
Nah, it's a perfectly logical comment. And if there was no relation between the persons campaigning and the persons that enter the house, this would probably foster resentment.
What is important to understand is that we don't have voting districts. The outcome is decided on the basis of the nationwide proportion of votes that a party has obtained. In the case of the Netherlands this will generally mean that the first (few) people on the party list will be the most prominent campaigners. Most people vote for them, and they will be in the house almost for certain.
I seem to recall from history that the same debate occurred many years ago in the US, I don't think this power was actually written in our constitution originally (Marbury v Madison set most of the important precedents I think).
There are still disagreements now, mostly on our right wing. They oppose judges who they say "legislate from the bench." (sound bite...) Congress can always pass a new law without the bit that the judges find incompatible with our constitution, but that takes time and effort.
|
That judges cannot decide on law has been debated far and wide in the Netherlands as well, starting at the writing of the constitution. The high courts have generally been very strict in their explanation of this law in rulings.
As I said, an amendment to the constitution (the "Halsema law on constitutional ruling" named after Femke Halsema, who proposed it) is currently debated which would give the high courts limited powers to rule on the constitutionality of laws for a limited number of paragraphs in the constitution (mainly those pertaining to freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2010 : 04:49:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I seem to recall from history that the same debate occurred many years ago in the US, I don't think this power was actually written in our constitution originally (Marbury v Madison set most of the important precedents I think). |
See Judicial Review. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2010 : 01:52:35 [Permalink]
|
Yup, election results are pretty much a puzzle. Interestingly, PVV (the far-right party of Geert Wilders) is pretty much far left on economic issues. So much to the left even that many of it's positions on these issues are very close to the Dutch far left Socialist Party. Which, of course, makes the formation of a government even harder. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
House Republicans attempt "GOP Kill" option
